News:

The Book of the Diner is well worth preserving. I only wish it had reached a broader audience when it might have mattered more. That is a testament to the blindness of our culture. If there is a future to look back from, one difficult question historians will have to ask is how we let this happen, when so many saw it coming. This site has certainly aggregated enough information and critical thinking to prove that.[/b]

Just maybe we are a bit depressed about all the talk of imminent collapse. Can you see the beauty in your surroundings? Do you even care to? Living simply is by all means necessary now. That does not mean we are constantly at war with slowing down the sixth extinction. When you live very simply you become able to appreciate your surroundings and the "miracle" of life and this universe. This is not Think Positive shit. It is a change in our basic chemistry to be able to appreciate our surroundings.

Here is a web page that has been in existence since 2007. I am not suited for their approach to this. Maybe some of you are. Visit it and see if it doesn't ring some bells in the way we approach our moment in time.

Just maybe we are a bit depressed about all the talk of imminent collapse. Can you see the beauty in your surroundings? Do you even care to? Living simply is by all means necessary now. That does not mean we are constantly at war with slowing down the sixth extinction. When you live very simply you become able to appreciate your surroundings and the "miracle" of life and this universe. This is not Think Positive shit. It is a change in our basic chemistry to be able to appreciate our surroundings.

Here is a web page that has been in existence since 2007. I am not suited for their approach to this. Maybe some of you are. Visit it and see if it doesn't ring some bells in the way we approach our moment in time.

In 2008, I left a six-figured corporate career from Amazon.com to have the mental space and time to travel, to think and to create online businesses that gave me freedom and fulfillment. It was a very scary time to cut out the security my job provided.

My vision was to “never work again”, by living a life following one’s inner calling, exploring one’s potential, generating massive value, and living fully in every moment. I’m happy to report that everything has worked out as planned.

If she had a 6-figure job in 2008 and left it, she probably had some nice savings to get started on her "never work again" lifestyle.

If I had just $100K in 2008, I also could have begun a life of never working again back then, without even collecting SS Disability. $10K for my rig, $10K/year for living expenses.

It’s simple. It’s us. The more people there are, the more habitats we destroy. Human civilization can only survive if the population begins to shrink.

One should not need to be a scientist to know that human population growth and the accompanying increase in human consumption are the root cause of the sixth mass extinction we’re currently seeing. All you need to know is that every living being has evolved to have a set of habitat requirements.

An organism can’t live where the temperature is too hot or too cold. If it lives in water, it requires not only an appropriate temperature range, but also appropriate salinity, acidity and other chemical characteristics. If it is a butterfly, it must have access to plants suitable for its caterpillars to eat. A lion requires plant-eaters to catch and devour. A tree needs a certain amount of sunlight and access to soil nutrients and water. A falciparum malaria parasite can’t survive and reproduce without Anopheles mosquitos in its habitat and a human bloodstream to infest.

The human population has grown so large that roughly 40% of the Earth’s land surface is now farmed to feed people — and none too well at that. Largely due to persistent problems with distribution, almost 800 million people to to bed hungry, and between one and two billion suffer from malnutrition. As a consequence of its booming population, Homo sapiens has taken much of the most fertile land to grow plants suitable for its own consumption. But guess what? That cropland is generally not rich in food plants suitable fo rthe caterpillars of the 15,000 butterfly species with which we share the planet. Few butterflies require the wheat, corn or rice on which humans largely depend. From the viewpoint of most of the Earth’s wildlife, farming can be viewed as “habitat destruction”. And, unsurprisingly, few species of wildlife have evolved to live on highways, or in strip malls, office buildings, kitchens or sewers — unless you count Norway rats, house mice, European starlings and German roaches. Virtually everything humanity constructs provides an example of habitat destruction.

The more people there are, the more products of nature they demand to meet their needs and wants: timber, seafood, meat, gas, oil, metal ores, rare earths and rare animals to eat or to use for medicinal purposes. Human demands cause both habitat destruction and outright extermination of wildlife. So when you watch the expansion of the human enterprise; when you see buildings springing up; when you settle down to dinner at home or in a restaurant; you are observing (and often participating in) the sixth mass extinction.

The expanding human population not only outright destroys habitats, it also alters them to the detriment of wildlife (and often of people themselves). The more people there are, the more greenhouse gases flow into the atmosphere, and the greater the impacts on wildlife that require specific temperature ranges.

And the more people there are, the more cities, roads, farm fields, fences and other barriers preventing wildlife from moving to areas of more favorable temperature or humidity in a rapidly changing climate. Less recognized, but perhaps even more dangerous to both people and wildlife, is the increasing toxification of the entire planet with synthetic chemicals. Growing populations want myriad more items of plastic that often leak toxic chemicals: more cosmetics, cleansing compounds, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives and industrial chemicals. Many of these novel chemicals mimic natural hormones, and in tiny quantities can alter the development of animals or human children, with potentially catastrophic consequences. As with climate disruption, this is one more case of human overpopulation threatening civilization.

So we don’t really need the evidence meticulously gathered and analyzed by the scientific community showing the unusual and accelerating extermination of wildlife populations — and ultimately, species — to know that human population growth is a major and growing driver of the sixth mass extinction, just as it is with the related accelerating climate disruption. It will take a long time to humanely stop that growth and start the gradual shrinkage of the human population that is required if civilization is to persist. All the more reason we should have started a half a century ago, when the problem first came to public attention.About Kent Blacklidge Ph.D.As part of a newspaper family who owned a 34,000 daily newspaper in the heart of the Midwest, I have a passion for a strong “Fourth Estate”, the press. Without a diligent and assertive free press, the power would be taken from the people. People have the absolute right to know. After earning a degree in Industrial Management from the Krannert School of Management at Purdue, I spent over 20 years in newspaper management with several as publisher. I am also holder of three graduate science degrees including a Ph.D.. I have a passionate interest in science and the environment. I have little tolerance for ignorance and stupidity.

Here's hoping the human species likes its own company, because at the rate Earth is going, we might be the only ones we've got left.

Nobody can say with certainty how many species there are on Earth, but the number runs well into the millions. Many of them, of course, are on the order of bacteria and spores. The other ones, the ones we can see and count and interact with—to say nothing of the ones we like—are far fewer. And, according to a new and alarming series of papers in Science, their numbers are falling fast, thanks mostly to us.

One of the first great rules of terrestrial biology is that no species is forever. The Earth has gone through five major extinction events before—from the Ordovician-Silurian, about 350 million years ago, to the Cretaceous-Paleogene, 65 million years back. The likely causes included volcanism, gamma ray bursts, and, in the case of the Cretaceous-Paleogene wipeout, an asteroid strike—the one that killed the dinosaurs. But the result of all of the extinctions was the same: death, a lot of it, for 70% to 90% of all species, depending on the event.

As increasingly accepted theories have argued—and as the Science papers show—we are now in the midst of the sixth great extinction, the unsettlingly-named Anthropocene, or the age of the humans.

The numbers are sobering: Over all, there has been a human-driven decline in the populations of all species by 25% over the past 500 years, but not all groups have suffered equally. Up to a third of all species of vertebrates are now considered threatened, as are 45% of most species of invertebrates. Among the vertebrates, amphibians are getting clobbered, with 41% of species in trouble, compared to just 17% of birds—at least so far. The various orders of insects suffer differently too: 35% of Lepidopteran species are in decline (goodbye butterflies), which sounds bad enough, but it's nothing compared to the similar struggles of nearly 100% of Orthoptera species (crickets, grasshoppers and katydids, look your last).

As the authors of all this loss, we are doing our nasty work in a lot of ways. Overexploitation—which is to say killing animals for food, clothing or the sheer perverse pleasure of it—plays a big role, especially among the so-called charismatic megafauna. So we get elephants slaughtered for their tusks, rhinos poached for their horns and tigers shot and skinned for their pelts, until oops—no more elephants, rhinos or tigers.

Habitat destruction is another big driver, particularly in rainforests, where 25,000 square miles (75,000 square km) of tree cover are lost annually—the equivalent of denuding one Panama per year, year after year. And you don't even have to chop or burn an ecosystem completely away to threaten its species; sometimes all it takes is cutting a few roads across it or building a few farms or homes in the wrong spots. Environmental fragmentation like this can be more than sufficient to cut species off from food or water, to say nothing of mates, and start them in a downward spiral that becomes irreversible.

Then too there is global warming, which makes once-hospitable habitats too hot or dry or stormy for species adapted to different conditions. Finally, as TIME's Bryan Walsh wrote in last week's cover story, there are invasive species—pests like the giant African snail, the lionfish or the emerald ash borer—which hitch a ride into a new ecosystem on ships or packing material, or are brought in as pets, and then reproduce wildly, crowding out native species.

The result of all this species loss—what the Science researchers dub defaunation—goes far beyond simply leaving us with a less rich, less diverse world. After all, the Earth bounced back from far worse extinctions and did just fine. But it bounced back a different way each time, and the most recent version, the one in which we emerged, is the one we like—and it's easy to destroy.

Loss of species, the authors point out, means loss of pollinators—which is a real problem since 75% of food crops rely on insects if they're going to thrive. Nutrient cycles—the decomposition of organic matter that feeds the soil—collapse if mobile species can't get from place to place and do their living and dying in a fairly even distribution. The same is true for water quality, which relies on all manner of animals to prevent lakes and rivers and streams from becoming too algae-dense or oxygen poor. Pest control suffers as well — when animals like bats are no longer around the eat the insect pests that attack crops, it's bad news for autumn harvests. North America alone is projected to suffer $22 billion in agricultural losses as desirable bat populations continue to decline.

It oughtn't take appealing to our self-interest to get us to quit making such a mess of what we're increasingly coming to learn is an exceedingly destructible world. But it's that very self-interest that led us to make that mess in the first place. We can either start to change our ways, or we can keep going the way we are—at least until the Anthropocene extinction claims one final species: our own.

Are YOUBLAME here Knarf, living a simple life as a Buddhist Monk on a small Monastery in MO?

I hate this "we" shit in these articles. I am not a member of this club.

RE

I think the we is referring to mass of humans that made terrible decisions about our environment. You were a trucker for many years (pollution), and yes I too contributed to the co2 rise. I still do, just not so much as when I was younger. I started doubting the TPTB at 19 when I read the "Pentagon Papers." After that I had jobs supporting corporations that make kitchen cabinets and counter tops. Then I traveled with a band all over the US , we had three cars. I would think that only 1/2 of 1% of modern man has stayed clear of contributing, the rest have.

Are YOUBLAME here Knarf, living a simple life as a Buddhist Monk on a small Monastery in MO?

I hate this "we" shit in these articles. I am not a member of this club.

RE

I think the we is referring to mass of humans that made terrible decisions about our environment. You were a trucker for many years (pollution), and yes I too contributed to the co2 rise. I still do, just not so much as when I was younger. I started doubting the TPTB at 19 when I read the "Pentagon Papers." After that I had jobs supporting corporations that make kitchen cabinets and counter tops. Then I traveled with a band all over the US , we had three cars. I would think that only 1/2 of 1% of modern man has stayed clear of contributing, the rest have.

No doubt we all "contribute". I certainly do. But "we" did not make the CHOICES that led us down this road, nor did we ever have CONTROL over what was being done, nor could we ever STOP it once we realized what the problem was. "WE" are not responsible for this mess. THEY are responsible, as in the people who had control over the society and made the choices that led us to this point.

Imagine you are an extraterrestrial intelligence which is monitoring the development of the universe.

Here is one of those rare planets which is teeming with life, some of it with significant intelligence.

One dominant species arises which develops industrial power.

However, it is an individualistic species which works out of selfish individual interests.

The individuals of this species are competitive. There are traits called "ego" (desire for high status among their group) and "greed".

The individuals also band into groups which compete with other groups.

Out of population explosion plus wanton consumption, this species has destroyed natural habitats, poisoned streams with industrial chemicals, and is wiping out other species at an incredible rate. These other species which took millions of years to develop, and the one industrial species is wiping out a large percentage of the rest in mere decades, an instant in the geological time of this planet.

This species is intelligent enough to understand that it is impacting the rest of the world carelessly, and there is even a small minority of its members which are asking others to cooperate in saving the environment and not engaging in unnecessary destruction. However, this is a small minority and overwhelmed by the vast majority who just want wanton consumption and don't care enough. They have a saying, "Talk is easy." It means that they want to preserve the environment. However, they don't want to make sacrifices to do so, and wanton consumption is much more desired and widely performed.

This species also has a seemingly unlimited ability to rationalize whatever they want to believe. It believes that it is highly intelligent in a narcissistic way without realizing how stupid it is.

This species is not taking responsibility for the biosphere of the planet.

This species establishes artificial "laws" for governing itself, mostly are local laws which vary by region, both in content and in enforcement or lack thereof. There are some worldwide laws, but almost nobody is interested in enforcing them except where they affect self interest.

Everywhere, there is something called "money", which is power to consume and also power to control others and exploit natural resources.

Practically all organizations serve only their own selfish interests.

The largest organizations, "nations", fight wars with each other for access to resources to consume, such as fossil fuels in limited supply.

Renewable energy is not used because it costs more "money", so the species prefers cheaper "fossil fuels" so they can maximize their consumption of the biosphere's limited resources today, instead of pay more money for energy whereby they have a little bit less money for wanton consumption.

This species is not hungry or deprived. It is out for maximum material gain and luxury, with much slower growth in mental development.

The television transmissions are overwhelmingly about violent competition and mating. Most of this is not real but is imagined stories, and the transmission creators compete for greater violence.

The species organizes into "nations" and "transnational companies".

The transnational companies supply foods which are not healthy for the consumers, including wantonly gluttonous high calorie meals, including poisons like "monosodium glutamate" to stimulate the senses of the consumers to make them prefer to buy their product instead of competitors', rationalizing that they have no responsibility, and only wanting to maximize the amount of money they collect.

The vast majority of the consumers don't care. They just want to wantonly consume selfishly.

The species has "laws" and "regulations" which are intended to be a "checks and balances" system between the selfish interests. However, the powers with money have great influence on these laws and regulations, as well as their enforcement or lack thereof.

There is something called "democracy" and "voters". However, in analyzing each "election", if a candidate stands up for the environment, they will surely lose. The winners are those for even more wanton consumption (maximize "economic growth"), and who appeal to lower instincts (emotions).

Of course, there are exceptional individuals, who by some combination of environmental upbringing and DNA predispositions are more responsible and advocate actions in the best interests of the Greater Good. These people often get a lot of publicity.

However, they are a very small minority, and publicity does not translate into effective action. It usually doesn't go much further than publicity. It raises public awareness but it influences only a tiny percentage of the population to actually do something, such as work to save the environment, or give a little bit of the money from their pocket to organizations trying to work for the Greater Good. Sometimes publicity attracts a little bit of funding and volunteers (a very tiny minority), but this is woefully inadequate on a global scale compared to the money of transnational corporations.

...

This species has developed its technology to the point where it is becoming able to create a biological "virus" to destroy itself.

This species has already created computer viruses, with malicious ones numbering in the millions and constantly trying to attack all the computers in the world (requiring antivirus technology). These are viruses which destroy valuable data (= higher level mental information), with no gain to the creator except the instinctual satisfaction ("ego") that they could do it. Many of these creators are "malicious" towards other people, but many others are just reckless "ego maniacs".

Biotechnology has advanced to where an individual in the laboratory can now have the power to do the same with a biological virus. Of course, with each year, the power to the individual is increasing with technology development.

Transnational companies are putting a lot of money into virus research, because they want to make drugs to also fight the viruses (anti-virus), which they can sell to the mass population to make a lot of money. The transnational companies are constantly modifying viruses to make them worse, their reason being that they want to be ready with anti-virus drugs for the future. Like individuals, the transnational companies seem able to rationalize anything for money, including creating worse viruses. They rationalize away the risk of creating an extinction capable man made technological virus, even though many scientists have explained that that this is already very possible.

The human species has already created an open electronic information exchange system called "internet" for spreading technology. This makes it easier for individuals to research and disseminate dangerous information.

(Notably, this internet has something called "spam" whereby one individual spammer wastes the time and resources of millions of otherwise productive people for the purpose of selfish money making for one individual, and accounts for approximately 85% of all email traffic on this internet.)

It is only a matter of time until an individual of this species creates a fatal virus which will make the species extinct in the biosphere.

This will probably come before this species creates a nanotechnology virus or self replicating machine to destroy the biosphere entirely.

This will also probably come before this species uses much older technology to create space colonies, simply because nobody is making money from space colonies and government and taxpayers are not interested, in view of competing selfish interests for taxpayer money and government projects.

{If you were an extraterrestrial intelligence, would you save this species, or would you let them go and wait for the next species to arise on this planet?}

It is possible that the small minority of exceptional individuals, who by some combination of environmental upbringing and DNA predispositions are more responsible and advocate actions in the best interests of the Greater Good, will create a self-sufficient space colony, so that this species survives after they become extinct on their original planet.

There has been much publicity of the concept of space industrialization of dead asteroids and the lifeless Moon nearby, instead of destroying Earth's precious biosphere for economic growth. However, this noble request has received practically no serious interest in this solution by the species as a whole.

The national governments are not interested in either space industrialization to save Earth's biosphere, nor in space colonization to save the species.

The transnational corporations are not interested in either because they don't see quick money in it. The transnational corporations are not interested in things more than a few years into the future, and as a money making company don't have any interest in saving Earth's biosphere or the species.

The amount of money needed to create space colonies is approximately 0.00001 (0.001%) of this world's yearly GNP.

At this time, the number of exceptional individuals, and the amount of resources (money) they have, is a very tiny amount, about 0.0000001% of the total asset resources (money) of the world, which is not enough.

There have long been attempts to increase this by publicity, to increase the number of exceptional individuals, or else to find one willing individual who has a very large amount of money to take any interest in the survival of the species. There are thousands of extremely wealthy individuals who could make space colonization happen, but none have come forward to do so yet. The careless still dominate.

At this point in time, it looks like the race between an extinction virus vs. a self-sufficient space colony will be won by the extinction virus, because the desire for money and greed which will lead a transnational company to create a virus, or else the individual ego desire to create or copy a virus, are much stronger than the desire to give money or actual work towards a self-sufficient space colony.

When the time comes that an extinction virus is spreading, many of the individuals will look up at the sky and ask us, the extraterrestrial intelligence, to intervene. They call us "God" because we have infinitely greater power than all of them combined, and also we have the power to do almost anything they wish.

Most of them realize, in their terms, that the power of "God" is far greater than the power of their own life sciences technology or all their money, so they desire God's power.

They have many different ideas of "God", almost all of them an anthropomorphized god.

Beyond individuals, there are entire "religions" and "sects" which define various Gods.

Each religion or sect has a set of moral laws, similar to national laws and corporation rules, but more individually oriented.

Their idea of "God" is created in the image of man -- sectarian, self-centered, narcissistic.

This species even immorally fights over "God", killing others who do not believe in their particular religion or sect. Many religions and sects fight other religions and sects. Some individuals called "terrorists" kill themselves and other individuals around them for this "god". Amazingly, it is with a moral rationalization, too. They actually believe that a God would condone this morally. Each thinks that they are actually morally right to do so. They actually believe that we, "God", wish for them to do these things, and to reward them for doing so.

Leaders in human society have created some good rules of behavior which say that if the individual follows these rules, then God will give them life after death. Most of these rules conform with higher thinking, such as not killing others, not mating wantonly and irresponsibly, not stealing, and working for a better world.

However, many of these people follow these rules in order to get a reward from "God", which is using God's power to save them individually (life after death), and provide what they desire while still alive, as well as heaven after death.

Many rules and beliefs vary from religion to religion, and sect to sect, but most individuals believe that the sect they were born into by chance is the "right" sect. This leads to groups fighting each other over "God".

However, only a small percentage of individuals actually follow all the good moral rules of their own God.

An even smaller percentage are actually interested in the Greater Good of life on Earth.

If something doesn't somehow benefit an individual, then they usually are not interested.

The belief in God is mostly an emotional one based on their fear of death and desire to not die, part of the natural survival instinct in animals which gets transferred to lower intelligence. There is only a small minority who actually do anything for the Greater Good on this world. The vast majority only want to save their selfish self by following God's rules for this reward.

Yet, they want God to be interested in working to help them, even though most of them don't want to do real work to help the Greater Good.

The individuals will not ask "God" to save their species or to save the environment or to save the world. Instead, the individuals will ask this "God" to save themselves as an individual, and not be interested in much else, except the people in their proximity they love, such as the family instinct.

They will ask the god to put them into a place called "Heaven". They have not developed much of a concept of "Heaven", but there are variations. For example, one large religion has sects which promise that their reward for obedience to their god includes things like wanton mating with "virgins" who have never mated before (without asking where the supply of such a disposable commodity may come from), and other silly things, including still more unlimited wanton consumption.

This is what most of them will look up and ask us as "God" to give to them.

Most of them did not look up at space resources like the Moon and asteroids near Earth and say "there are the heavens where we can develop lifeless resources and space colonies instead of hurting life on Earth and fighting each other for Earth's limited resources, and we can save the Earth's biosphere while also enjoying luxurious consumption in space". Most of them are not interested in what they can do for the Greater Good. Most of them are interested only in what God can do for them, because God has greater power, and despite their own moral shortcomings in deed.

Should "God" tell all these individuals "too late" in all their various languages?

Why should "God" be interested in either them as individuals, or their entire species?

Should God, in infinite patience, just wait and see what the next industrial species looks like?

The above is a theoretical viewpoint of a superintelligence vastly beyond our own.

Now let's look at ourselves.

In looking at our future as a species on the planet, we have to look at the vast majority vs. the exceptions.

In looking at our future as a species beyond the planet, we should be looking at the exceptional people and screening likewise, though in reality, if space tourism takes off, it will probably include if not be dominated by those with the maximum individual wealth, rather than individuals chosen for their track record as working for the Greater Good. I'm hoping that I'm wrong about this, but in any case, it is best to get people off the planet self-sufficiently in a less than ideal way than to fail due to too much idealism.

The surviving individuals of the human species will be responsible for creating our descendant artificial general intelligence (AGI), which will be created in their own image, as discussed in the section on AGI. We can start to define guidelines for this AGI -- values and interests -- today, and hope they catch on, but we won't get that far if we don't save our species first.Examples of Human Species Flaws

Government leadership is important in guiding us, but try to win an election based on environmentalism or some form of responsibility for this planet. You may get a few percent of the vote. The winner with the majority will be the person who says they will bring lower gasoline prices, grow the economy into even more unbridled consumption, and give you more wanton consumption.

People will say that they care about the environment, but talk is easy. When given a choice, the vast majority will selfishly not practice what they preach, and rationalize it away.

When faced with the prospect of biotechnology extinction and space colonization as a solution, the vast majority will:

Rather not deal with the issue, because it is not fun for them, or doesn't make them feel happy, or doesn't make them money Rationalize why it's not true, so there's no need to worry, and many will actually ridicule the concept Wait until it becomes mainstream thinking before they accept it

It is a challenge to get these two issues into mainstream thinking, biotechnology extinction and self-sufficient space colonies.

It is even more of a challenge to get people to do anything about it.

After all, we know there is a mass extinction of many species already happening, loss of wildlife habitats, global warming already occurring (except many people and right wing politicians are still in denial and rationalization because they don't want to believe it, most often out of selfish desire for expanded wanton consumption and votes...), and so on ... but what are we, as a species, doing about it?

It is possible for a species on a planet to see the logic and take responsibility to cooperate to implement solutions.

But the human species on Earth? The proof is already here. Just look around. Responsible for the Greater Good does not describe our species.

Humans' instinct is to do what feels good, not think about things which do not feel good. Humans live in their own individualistic world. We still live and behave like a small tribe of cave men who had limited impact. The problem is, we are no longer cave men, and our impact is now globally.

There are other species on this planet which are more community-first oriented, even sacrificing their individual lives for the greater good of their community, albeit this describes only a small minority of species on this planet. However, it's possible that a particular species may evolve a higher intelligence because of these advantageous traits and someday come after us. If it's possible, then it has surely happened somewhere in this universe or another universe. It doesn't exist here on Earth, that's for sure!

So, what if life from Earth just doesn't make it? So what. There are billions of other galaxies, each with billions of other solar systems. Probably trillions. We're just one.

As regards Earth, there is no species on this planet which takes responsibility for other species or life on the planet itself. That requires intelligence overriding instinct. Humans are short on thoughtful intelligence and long on instinctual feelings.

Sure, there are many individuals in this world with this intelligence, moral upbringing, genetic offshoot leadership ability, and self-discipline to face and deal with unpleasant matters, and who strive to develop the Greater Good. However, they are a very small percentage, and overwhelmed by the vast majority.

The vast majority are the feeling, not thinking, wanton selfish consumers.

Even look at business. I am an employer, and most interviewees I find unsuitable for hiring, plus many I must let go of or else put into limited roles most of the remainder. Those who truly work for the best interests of the customer and/or the organization are a precious small minority (and have often been the reason I continued to pursue some projects -- for those people and their dependents, not because the project was exceptionally good).

One thing I learned early in personal life as well as business is that you don't go by what people say, you go by what people do.

People often talk in lofty terms. Look at all our hypocrite politicians, preachers, and associates.

When somebody says "we should save the environment" or "we should create self-sufficient space colonies", I ask them "what have you actually done to help out"? Talk is easy, but have you ever tried to walk the walk?

Likewise, in hiring, by far the best thing to go on is track record. (Sometimes there are exceptions, and it's good to keep an open mind, but it has to be a very strongly exceptional presentation to be comparable in weight to track record. Most people who I gave a chance to did not get far, and many stole or were careless to customers and other staff ... though there are some big exceptions.)

So, after people read all of this, I must ask: Are you part of the problem, or part of the solution?

Out of all geologic time, we are in a very special generation, where we are wreaking unprecedented damage to our environment, and facing potential species wide extinction. Whether we want to accept it or not, the responsibility is on us.

If you want to be part of the solution, on the side of the Greater Good, then you need to start to create your track record.

Are YOUBLAME here Knarf, living a simple life as a Buddhist Monk on a small Monastery in MO?

I hate this "we" shit in these articles. I am not a member of this club.

RE

I think the we is referring to mass of humans that made terrible decisions about our environment. You were a trucker for many years (pollution), and yes I too contributed to the co2 rise. I still do, just not so much as when I was younger. I started doubting the TPTB at 19 when I read the "Pentagon Papers." After that I had jobs supporting corporations that make kitchen cabinets and counter tops. Then I traveled with a band all over the US , we had three cars. I would think that only 1/2 of 1% of modern man has stayed clear of contributing, the rest have.

No doubt we all "contribute". I certainly do. But "we" did not make the CHOICES that led us down this road, nor did we ever have CONTROL over what was being done, nor could we ever STOP it once we realized what the problem was. "WE" are not responsible for this mess. THEY are responsible, as in the people who had control over the society and made the choices that led us to this point.

RE

In my practice as a Buddhist, there is no dualism such as "me" and "them". We are one species, and that species has some fatal flaws.